Here is a compendium of Bachmann’s problems. Author Will Cain says it’s time for her to bow out. Probably so.

So who’s left that’s acceptable? Just you and I, and neither of us has a shot.

LA replies:

She’s been creamed by the mainstream press over the “mental retardation” remark, which I criticized her for yesterday.

Here is an article in today’s New York Times, “Misstatements Shadow Bachmann.”

And this is from a Wall Street Journal editorial accusing her of “vaccine demagoguery”:

Mrs. Bachmann’s vaccine demagoguery is another matter. After the debate the Minnesotan has been making the talk show rounds implying that HPV vaccines cause “mental retardation” on the basis of no evidence. This is the kind of know-nothingism that undermines public support for vaccination altogether and leads to such public health milestones as California reporting in 2010 the highest number of whooping cough cases in 55 years.

The GOP critique of government in the age of Obama would be more credible if the party’s candidates did not equate trying to save lives with tyranny.

The Republican primary field is understandably debating the role of the state in American life, but some of the contenders seem determined to fulfill President Obama’s caricature of conservatives as favoring no government at all. Take Monday night’s rumpus over cervical cancer.

In 2007, Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV, the major cause of cervical cancer and also the most commonly sexually transmitted disease. In Monday’s debate, Michele Bachmann claimed with her customary delicacy that “to have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat-out wrong” and “a violation of a liberty interest.”

We revere “liberty interests” too, but kids aren’t being strapped to gurneys here. The ethical and philosophical qualms about Mr. Perry’s HPV bid are valid, but he was erring on the side of public health against a terrible disease in a country where six million people contract HPV every year.

The incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer have dropped since the introduction of the pap smear and it is curable if detected early, but since 2006 it has been preventable through vaccination. Merck’s Gardasil vaccine and now GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix prevent infection by the most high-risk viral strains that cause 70% of all cervical cancers. Because the drugs are only effective prior to sexual activity, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend vaccination in girls and boys (who can transmit HPV) as young as nine.

Opponents of mandatory vaccination include social conservatives who believe the vaccine will increase promiscuity, though we suspect watching MTV is a greater spur to teen sex. Opposition to state involvement in treatment decisions has more force: HPV is not casually communicable like polio or measles. Yet the executive order included a clause that allowed families to opt out for “reasons of conscience” or “to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care.” At a certain point, the distinction between “opt in” and “opt out” becomes academic when the violation of liberty is filling out minor paperwork.

The larger opportunity here is to eradicate a potentially terminal disease that has huge economic, social and other costs. Such progress is especially welcome when other government trends—the FDA’s cancer drug approvals, the eventual treatment restrictions inherent in national health care—are running in the opposite direction.

Mrs. Bachmann’s charges of Mr. Perry’s “crony capitalism” are more on point, even if they are based on insinuation. Merck aggressively promoted school mandates for Gardasil to the states, and among its lobbyists was Mr. Perry’s former chief of staff. The Texas legislature overturned Mr. Perry’s order without much protest from the Governor, but the overall connections between the Texas Governor’s office and business deserve attention.

Mrs. Bachmann’s vaccine demagoguery is another matter. After the debate the Minnesotan has been making the talk show rounds implying that HPV vaccines cause “mental retardation” on the basis of no evidence. This is the kind of know-nothingism that undermines public support for vaccination altogether and leads to such public health milestones as California reporting in 2010 the highest number of whooping cough cases in 55 years.

The GOP critique of government in the age of Obama would be more credible if the party’s candidates did not equate trying to save lives with tyranny.

- end of initial entry -

Leonard K. writes:

Did you notice that all the candidates you sympathize with, eventually lose? (Romney and Hillary Clinton in 2008, and probably Bachmann now) I think you possess a powerful leverage that you could use: just endorse the candidate you like LEAST, and he/she is guaranteed to fail!

LA replies:

Do you mean I’m a beautiful loser?

But seriously, I never actually was a Bachmann supporter. I said from the start that while I liked her, I was not convinced that she was viable. So my record of rooting for losers is not quite as bad as you said.

Leonard K. writes:

OK, who is the Republican candidate you dislike most? Is it the “Bush encore” Rick Perry? Then just endorse him, and he’s gonna lose!

LA replies:

I don’t expect there to be a Republican nominee that I will like, so there’s no one whom I dislike who I want to lose in order that someone I like can win. Further, the question of which candidate I dislike is not ultimately relevant, because I will support any Republican nominee who is pledged to repeal Obamacare. The only condition that would change this is if the Supreme Court overthrows Obamacare before the November 2012 election.

Also, your summary of my record as supporter of losers is not entirely correct. I declined to support McCain in 2008, and he lost.

Irv P. writes:

Nothing has happened or been said that has disqualified her from my casting my vote for her. Gingrich, Romney, Perry, and Paul have all disqualified themselves. The others don’t seem electable at this time. She is the only electable person in this race that agrees with me to a certain extent, about the really pressing issues that face us as traditionalists. She is far from perfect. NO ONE IS, NOR WILL WE EVER HAVE THE PERFECT CANDIDATE. If she doesn’t win this nomination, we are going to have to hold our noses as we cast a vote for anyone placed in opposition to the communist. With her, my olfactory senses will not be effected.

She will be able to appoint people that will make up for her shortcomings. It is her basic world view that we must keep supporting!

LA replies:

Lack of perfection is not the issue here; it’s a false argument to say that people are rejecting Bachmann because she’s not perfect. The issue is that she appears not to be a viable candidate, on the basis of her own statements that show a lack of the intelligence and intellectual flexibility to deal competently with issues. Yes, she’s good on a handful of conservative issues because she holds the line and is forceful. But that’s not enough to be a convincing or competent candidate, let alone president.

At the same time, as already stated, if she is the nominee I would vote for her.